Conquer Club

It's really, really, really, really dumb that the USSR "missile launch" territory can not be bombarded from the USA "missile launch" territory and vise versa.

I know that what's his dick, that designed the map, was a pretty smart guy but he sure fucked the pooch on this one.

demonfork wrote:It's really, really, really, really dumb that the USSR "missile launch" territory can not be bombarded from the USA "missile launch" territory and vise versa.

I know that what's his dick, that designed the map was a pretty smart guy but he sure fucked the pooch on this one.

Why should you add a bombard to a killer neutral? It's better that way. Instead of losing the game and it vanishing off the active screens when you're not paying attention, it forces you to begin your turn only to lose in a humiliating fashion.

-----That is funny, I once won a 3 -player Eastern Hemisphere thanks to killy nuety... ...I had most of the map but only 1 card...One of the other 2 players attacked the other...ended their turn with 5 cards, most of their army was on Naval Super. Kil,nuet...The last player went after the 5 card player...wiped out all but the Naval Sup... forgot about it until it was to late...As it ended up...I had no choice but to let Killer Nuet take out the 5 card player and the cards,on their next turn...I took out the last player besides me in 2 turns...Man that player was pissed...I laughed and laughed away with the win... ConfederateSS.out!(The Blue and Silver Rebellion)...

I have played arms race 9000+ games. It is perfect and makes you think. Just because you lost a game doesnt mean it is a flaw.

DoomYoshi wrote:

demonfork wrote:It's really, really, really, really dumb that the USSR "missile launch" territory can not be bombarded from the USA "missile launch" territory and vise versa.

I know that what's his dick, that designed the map was a pretty smart guy but he sure fucked the pooch on this one.

Why should you add a bombard to a killer neutral? It's better that way. Instead of losing the game and it vanishing off the active screens when you're not paying attention, it forces you to begin your turn only to lose in a humiliating fashion.

Sure, in a 1v1, not so much in a multi player esc.


How do I take out a player and capture his cards in a multiplayer esc if said player is occupying the missile launch territory?

demonfork wrote:

DoomYoshi wrote:

demonfork wrote:It's really, really, really, really dumb that the USSR "missile launch" territory can not be bombarded from the USA "missile launch" territory and vise versa.

I know that what's his dick, that designed the map was a pretty smart guy but he sure fucked the pooch on this one.

Why should you add a bombard to a killer neutral? It's better that way. Instead of losing the game and it vanishing off the active screens when you're not paying attention, it forces you to begin your turn only to lose in a humiliating fashion.

Sure, in a 1v1, not so much in a multi player esc.


How do I take out a player and capture his cards in a multiplayer esc if said player is occupying the missile launch territory?

Indeed. It's also a problem for terminator games, for the same reason. So I agree with demonfork, it's bad design.

How do I take out a player and capture his cards in a multiplayer esc if said player is occupying the missile launch territory?

——

Go up the other missile as well, or don’t try to kill someone after they used it. Target someone else. Not bad design if you are targeting the wrong people it’s bad play

IcePack wrote:How do I take out a player and capture his cards in a multiplayer esc if said player is occupying the missile launch territory?

——

Go up the other missile as well, or don’t try to kill someone after they used it. Target someone else. Not bad design if you are targeting the wrong people it’s bad play

In many cases it may not be possible to go up the other silo as once a player is eliminated from any one side it's impossible to get back.

Furthermore what if the dude that you are trying to take out is the only dude on that side? In that case it becomes impossible for anyone to take that dude out if he also happens to be occupying the missile launch territory.

Again, not bad play, bad design.


It's also clear from your response that you don't know shit about this map.

demonfork wrote:

IcePack wrote:How do I take out a player and capture his cards in a multiplayer esc if said player is occupying the missile launch territory?

——

Go up the other missile as well, or don’t try to kill someone after they used it. Target someone else. Not bad design if you are targeting the wrong people it’s bad play

In many cases it may not be possible to go up the other silo as once a player is eliminated from any one side it's impossible to get back.

Furthermore what if the dude that you are trying to take out is the only dude on that side? In that case it becomes impossible for anyone to take that dude out if he also happens to be occupying the missile launch territory.

Again, not bad play, bad design.

It's also clear from your response that you don't know shit about this map.

lol sure thing DF getting eliminated from one side might be due to how you played (bad play) if you end up stuck there, and know he’s the only one on your side etc then again - you play the situation.

If your dumbass goes for an elimination you can’t finish, then that’s your fault.

I think the middle ground, that we can all agree on, is that it would be less of a problem if CC didn't keep giving people horrible dice that cause them to get eliminated on one side.

IcePack wrote:
lol sure thing DF getting eliminated from one side might be due to how you played (bad play) if you end up stuck there, and know he’s the only one on your side etc then again - you play the situation.

mibi wrote:

Incandenza wrote:I think one of the reasons that this map has received 10x more graphic comments than gameplay ones is that it's really difficult (at least for me anyway) to envision just how this map is going to play.... and if we've learned anything from AoR, it's that complex maps rarely play exactly to form...

This map would seem tailor-map for playtesting, but in the absence of such, you guys may need to make some on-the-fly adjustments when it goes live, like dim did with AoR...

I dont think its that difficult conceptually. The bottom line, most likely, is that all players will be eliminated except for two on opposing sides. Then the arms race begins. That is how i envisioned it, and how I think it will play out. I dont really see any other scenarios being very likely. Although its possible one player gets control of the whole country before another player gets control of the other... and someone will get a head start on the arms race... but thats life.. and what the spies are for.

So the vision of the mapmaker was to have the game end as the result of bad play?

mrswdk wrote:I think the middle ground, that we can all agree on, is that it would be less of a problem if CC didn't keep giving people horrible dice that cause them to get eliminated on one side.

I don's see this as middle ground. To me its more of a half way between middle & high ground relationship. So maybe 3/4 ground... possible even a 13/16 ground.

From the mouths of the mapmakers...

mibi wrote:

WidowMakers wrote:I just noticed a major problem. Once a player is removed from one of teh countries, they have no way to actually attack back. They can bombard with teh spy or missile but not actually reclaim and territories. And since the missile can only bombard cities and the spy can only bombard presidents, scientists and target acquisitions, a player can just sit back in the bunkers and uranium and the game will never end.

To solve this I think teh spices should be able to attack, not bombard. That way there is a link back and fort between the USA and USSR.

Thoughts

WM

The missile launch can attack every territory, problem solved. Making the spies able to attack opens up a whole new can of worms, people invading via the pies and leaving the missile rather useless.

If the missile can attack any of the other territories then there is only one issue left, after you have defeated your opponent from your own land, you wont be able to get any more cards, since its bombard only from there on out, and you dont get cards for bombardment. But this is not really a central issue anyways.

WidowMakers wrote:

mibi wrote:

WidowMakers wrote:I just noticed a major problem. Once a player is removed from one of teh countries, they have no way to actually attack back. They can bombard with teh spy or missile but not actually reclaim and territories. And since the missile can only bombard cities and the spy can only bombard presidents, scientists and target acquisitions, a player can just sit back in the bunkers and uranium and the game will never end.

To solve this I think teh spices should be able to attack, not bombard. That way there is a link back and fort between the USA and USSR.

Thoughts

WM

The missile launch can attack every territory, problem solved. Making the spies able to attack opens up a whole new can of worms, people invading via the pies and leaving the missile rather useless.

If the missile can attack any of the other territories then there is only one issue left, after you have defeated your opponent from your own land, you wont be able to get any more cards, since its bombard only from there on out, and you dont get cards for bombardment. But this is not really a central issue anyways.

I think you do get a card. There was a thread discussing this earlier. I can't find it.

But other than the card thing, US missile can attack any USSR territory (and vice versa) does solve the problem.

WM

mibi wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

Coleman wrote:

Night Strike wrote:If you want to keep it within the same country, perhaps rename it to Targeting Computer or something like it.

I agree and disagree, I am pretty sure what we call targeting computers and their function is targeting acquisition.

However, it may be less confusing to rename it.

Personally, I know that he means to keep it in the same country, but I could definitely rationalize it being the primary target for the first strike. A sequence like: The president controls the warhead and has now locked on to the desired target in the opposing country.

even though it says the nuke can attack any foreign territory?

WidowMakers wrote:

yeti_c wrote:On another note - 2 player FOW games on this will be awesome... a short battle to chose a side... then who can get the vital territories quick enough to get the missile - without being able to see what the other player is doing - until KABOOOOOOMMMMMMM!!!!

C.

Actually since the missile launch can bombard any foreign territory, once a player occupies it, they will see the rest of the map. FOW become pointless once that territory is held. Spies work against FOW as well bu tin a much more limited way.

WM

WidowMakers wrote:
...The only way this can happen is by allowing the missile launch territory to bombard all enemy territories.


WM

WidowMakers wrote:So basically the map will allow the missile launch territory to attack ANY opposing territory. That is, any territory the other country can control.


WM

And the smoking gun...

yeti_c wrote:PS - "Launch" territory will also need to be bombarded for the victory too...

C.

yeti_c wrote:

lanyards wrote:If there are 2 players, then they each take all territories on USA and USSR so that they each have their own side, there is no way for them to attack or bombard MISSLE LAUNCH, and it doesnt have a killer neutral, correct? So there would be no way to win.

--lanyards

I think that the Missile can bombard everything - "Missile Launch" included.

C.

The mapmakers intended for all territories on opposing sides to be accessible from the missile launch.

Based on all of the evidence it's clear that the current inability to bombard the missile launch territory is a design flaw.

demonfork wrote:

mrswdk wrote:I think the middle ground, that we can all agree on, is that it would be less of a problem if CC didn't keep giving people horrible dice that cause them to get eliminated on one side.

I don's see this as middle ground. To me its more of a half way between middle & high ground relationship. So maybe 3/4 ground... possible even a 13/16 ground.

Reported for racism.

Seems like Maynard really dropped a bomb on this one.

iAmCaffeine wrote:Seems like Maynard really dropped a bomb on this one.

Yea, it was pretty much a mic drop.

i don't think the missile launch territory should be allowed to bombard all enemy territories.

In particular I think it shouldn't be able to bombard the territory demonfork is talking about.

Demonfork wins this thread. Change it. It s dumb.

If the map is an abnormal map, it shall be changed!

Until we get the opinion of jefjef and OliverFA, I can't support this suggestion, no matter how winning it may be.

DoomYoshi wrote:Until we get the opinion of jefjef and OliverFA, I can't support this suggestion, no matter how winning it may be.

You're jefjef and OliverFA!

xroads wrote:I have played arms race 9000+ games. It is perfect and makes you think. Just because you lost a game doesnt mean it is a flaw.

can't argue with 9k
I love playing the recently popular baltic crusades but id argue arms race is less punishing drop wise.

nietzsche wrote:i don't think the missile launch territory should be allowed to bombard all enemy territories.

In particular I think it shouldn't be able to bombard the territory demonfork is talking about.

and of course, to be on topic, yes to this. not a design flaw at all. it has lead to many interesting game endings for me. i was not always on the winning end of them!!